WI Northern Nullification is Challenged...1843

In the 1830s, South Carolina threatened to nullify recently passed federal tariff acts and prevent them from being enforced within the bounds of said State. In response, President Andrew Jackson made it clear that he intended to use military force against South Carolina if she proceeded with these actions, and South Carolina, in the end, backed down, defusing the crisis.

What is less known or appreciated is that the Northern States, beginning in the late 1830s and continuing onward from that time, effectively nullified not only federal legislation...in the form of the Fugitive Slave Act...but also a provision of the Constitution itself...the so-called Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution.

In 1842, the United States Supreme Court, in the Prigg v Pennsylvania decision, ruled that the Northern Nullification Acts (more popularly known as "Personal Liberty Laws") were unconstitutional. In response, in the following year, four States...Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and Vermont...passed new personal liberty laws in defiance of the Supreme Court's decision.

Unlike the situation with South Carolina in the 1830s, the Federal Government never threatened to use military force against those Northern States which were nullifying not only Federal Law, but the Constitution itself. But what if, rather than ignoring the issue, President John Tyler had decided to do just that?

Will the Northern States...just for the sake of the scenario, lets say the most radical (i.e. New England, along with possibly New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio)...secede in protest?

If they do, what happens? Will there be war or, or will the South and the West allow "the erring sisters to go in peace?"

robertp6165 said:

In the 1830s, South Carolina threatened to nullify recently passed federal tariff acts and prevent them from being enforced within the bounds of said State. In response, President Andrew Jackson made it clear that he intended to use military force against South Carolina if she proceeded with these actions, and South Carolina, in the end, backed down, defusing the crisis.

What is less known or appreciated is that the Northern States, beginning in the late 1830s and continuing onward from that time, effectively nullified not only federal legislation...in the form of the Fugitive Slave Act...but also a provision of the Constitution itself...the so-called Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution.

In 1842, the United States Supreme Court, in the Prigg v Pennsylvania decision, ruled that the Northern Nullification Acts (more popularly known as "Personal Liberty Laws") were unconstitutional. In response, in the following year, four States...Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and Vermont...passed new personal liberty laws in defiance of the Supreme Court's decision.

Unlike the situation with South Carolina in the 1830s, the Federal Government never threatened to use military force against those Northern States which were nullifying not only Federal Law, but the Constitution itself. But what if, rather than ignoring the issue, President John Tyler had decided to do just that?

Will the Northern States...just for the sake of the scenario, lets say the most radical (i.e. New England, along with possibly New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio)...secede in protest?

If they do, what happens? Will there be war or, or will the South and the West allow "the erring sisters to go in peace?"

Click to expand...

Ah the war of Northern Succession....yee hah!

They win of course ,but don't take everything with them...

Well, with the entire issue of John Tyler's succession being tenuous at best not to mention the fact that he was widely unpopular amongst his own party makes him unlikely to make such a decision. Harrison and Van Buren are also unlikely candidates.

A man like John C. Calhoun would have to be president in order for such a decision to be made. The resulting war of secession would undoubtedly result in the North seceding with the help of Britain and probably gaining a godly portion of the North West.

The US is going to be weaker in the meantime resulting in Texas remaining independent longer and Mexico retaining control of California (definitely longer than OTL if not indefinitely). Oregon territory could go to New England providing they have access or might become completely British.

Fearless Leader said:

Well, with the entire issue of John Tyler's succession being tenuous at best not to mention the fact that he was widely unpopular amongst his own party makes him unlikely to make such a decision.

Click to expand...

Tyler would have, indeed, been unlikely to make such a decision, but not for the reason cited. Tyler was a complete believer in State's Rights, and would not likely have used military force to coerce a State for any reason. As to his "succession being tenuous at best," there was never any question he would succeed W. H. Harrison. He was the elected Vice President.

However, the POD is that Tyler does make the decision to enforce the Constitution by military means. Therefore, whatever we may think of his relative likelihood of doing so, that is the scenario we are discussing.

Fearless Leader said:

Harrison and Van Buren are also unlikely candidates.

Click to expand...

If you mean unlikely candidates to use military force to enforce the Constitution, you may be right about Van Buren, but William Henry Harrison, had he survived and been President in 1843 rather than Tyler, may indeed have done so. He was a military man, more so than a politician.

Fearless Leader said:

A man like John C. Calhoun would have to be president in order for such a decision to be made.

Click to expand...

John C. Calhoun would be even less likely than Tyler to use military force to coerce a State or group of States. He was the paramount theorist and proponent of both State's Rights and Nullification during this era.

Fearless Leader said:

The resulting war of secession would undoubtedly result in the North seceding with the help of Britain and probably gaining a godly portion of the North West.

Click to expand...

This assumes that there would be a war, of course, which I view as questionable. Assuming there is a war, I have my doubts that Britain would get actively involved, although I can see them snatching the Oregon Country while the U.S. was in turmoil.

Fearless Leader said:

The US is going to be weaker in the meantime resulting in Texas remaining independent longer and Mexico retaining control of California (definitely longer than OTL if not indefinitely).

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Indeed, I can still see President James K. Polk still being elected and maneuvering the annexation of Texas...now free from opposition by the Northern States which stalled the process in OTL...possibly even earlier than in OTL. And the United States still wins the resulting war with Mexico. It still has the Navy and the Regular Army, and Northern contribution to the war effort was marginal anyway in OTL due to widespread opposition to the war in the North. The resulting peace treaty is probably even harsher for Mexico...they probably not only lose their OTL losses, but likely the Northern tier of Mexican States as well. Maybe the U.S. even takes the whole country...without Northern opposition to worry about, why not?

robertp6165 said:

In 1842, the United States Supreme Court, in the Prigg v Pennsylvania decision, ruled that the Northern Nullification Acts (more popularly known as "Personal Liberty Laws") were unconstitutional. In response, in the following year, four States...Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and Vermont...passed new personal liberty laws in defiance of the Supreme Court's decision.

Click to expand...

Oh I love Northern seccession, but wouldn't have those four split the U.S in two geographicly speaking since most of New England would still be in the U.S. Unless you have something like during the ACW were some states secced first and when the millitary is call another bulk decide to leave.

A proposed timeline...

Early 1843--Several Northern States pass "Personal Liberty Laws" in defiance of the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Prigg v. Pennsylvania case.

July 1843--President Tyler declares that the Federal Government will enforce the Constitution, by military means if necessary.

August 1843--President Tyler begins massing regular army units in Maryland and Kentucky to back up his threat, as well as stationing naval squadrons outside New York and Boston harbors.

September 1843--In response to President Tyler's provocative actions, a Convention of the Northern States is called in Hartford, Connecticut. A resolution is passed calling for secession from the Union. The New York and Massachusetts State Legisature vote for secession a week later.

On September 21, President Tyler declares New York and Massachusetts to be in rebellion, and orders the closure of New York and Boston Harbors. In response, the rest of the New England States secede over the course of the following two weeks, along with Pennsylvania and Ohio.

October 1843--President Tyler calls for 75,000 troops to put down the rebellion. However, the Southern States refuse to support the effort to coerce their sister States, and impeachment proceedings are soon brought against Tyler.

November 1843--Tyler is impeached and removed from office. Samuel Southard of New Jersey, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, becomes the next President of the United States.

January 1844--The seceded States petition to rejoin the Union. However, the Southern States, which now control the Federal Government, insist that if they are to rejoin the Union, they must agree to abide by the Constitution and all of it's provisions. The seceded Northern States balk.

March 1844--A Convention of the seceded States decides to form the Federated States of America (F.S.A.). Daniel Webster of Massachusetts is selected as Provisional President, pending an election to be held in November.

March through June 1844--The remaining "free" States, fearing the new power of the South and it's control of Congress, secede from the U.S.A. and petition to join the F.S.A. Their applications are accepted. There are now two nations, where once there was one.

June 1844--Following the secession of New Jersey from the United States, President Samuel Southard resigns from his office. He is succeeded by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Willie Persons Mangum of North Carolina.

July 1844--A treaty is signed dividing up the Western Territories between the U.S.A. and the F.S.A. along the Missouri Compromise Line. It is further agreed that the two nations will have "spheres of influence and expansion" in the Far West, and they agree to extend the Missouri Compromise Line to the Pacific Ocean.

November 1844--James K. Polk of Kentucky defeats President Mangum in the national election and is elected President of the United States. Daniel Webster is elected the first non-provisional President of the Federated States of America.

December 1844--President Mangum persuades the U.S. Congress to pass a joint resolution for the annexation of Texas.

March 1845--James K. Polk is sworn into office as the thirteenth President of the United States.

July 4, 1845--The Texas Convention passes an Ordinance of Annexation, agreeing to annexation by the United States.

September 1, 1845--The Republic of Texas is formally annexed by the United States, and ceases to exist. Mexico strongly protests and threatens war.

September 1845 to January 1846--President Polk attempts to negotiate the purchase of New Mexico and California from Mexico. Upon learning of Polk's action, President Webster of the F.S.A. sends a stern diplomatic warning to the U.S.A. reminding President Polk of the agreed-upon spheres of influence in the Far West, and demands that any such negotiations be conducted on a joint basis. Polk agrees, and a joint delegation is sent to Mexico with the aim of procuring all Mexican territory north of the Rio Grande River. Mexico refuses to negotiate.

January 1846--President Polk sends troops, under General Zachary Taylor, to secure the southern border of Texas at the Rio Grande. Mexico holds that the southern border of Texas rests upon the Nueces River, and Mexican troops attack the U.S. forces, beginning the U.S./Mexican War.

January 1846-October 1847--The U.S./Mexican War ends in a victory for the United States. As U.S. forces battle Mexican troops in Mexico, as well as New Mexico and southern California, the F.S.A. sends troops westward, against little opposition, to secure the lands north of the Compromise Line, including the prize port of San Francisco Bay in California.

January 1848--President Polk, who has been trying to negotiate an end to the Mexican War, is not having any success. U.S. forces are occupying most of Mexico's major cities, and Mexican military opposition is pretty much at an end. When the Mexican "Government in Exile" still refuses to negotiate, Polk decides enough is enough, and asks Congress to declare the total annexation of Mexico.

February 1848--The U.S. Congress passes legislation formally annexing Mexico south of the Missouri Compromise Line.

March 1848--During the war, U.S. forces occupied some areas north of the Missouri Compromise line, and F.S.A. forces occupied some areas south of the line. In this month, a treaty is agreed upon exchanging these illegally occupied territories and recognizing each nation's claims to the territory they have seized from Mexico.

I thought it was a good enough start

Here's a map for the timeline...

robertp6165 said:

Here's a map for the timeline...

Click to expand...

You missed El Salvador

John Tyler's succession was shaky- people still argued over whether he was acting as president or if he was actually the President......

He may be impeached if he tries to start a war.

quick thing on the map. Iowa and Minnesota aren't states at this point and with new england's secession they would stay with the US except for the arrowhead region of minnesota around duluth, which was apart of the Northwest territories.

Nicksplace27 said:

quick thing on the map. Iowa and Minnesota aren't states at this point and with new england's secession they would stay with the US except for the arrowhead region of minnesota around duluth, which was apart of the Northwest territories.

Click to expand...

The map shows the situation in 1849. Both Iowa and Minnesota would have gone to the F.S.A. per the treaty of 1844 whereby the Western Territories were divided along the former Missouri Compromise Line. Iowa was admitted in 1846 in OTL, and we can assume that it would have been admitted by the same time to the F.S.A. Minnesota was admitted to the Union in 1858 in OTL. In the ATL, the F.S.A. adopted somewhat less stringent requirements for the admission of new States and admitted Minnesota in early 1849.

HueyLong said:

John Tyler's succession was shaky- people still argued over whether he was acting as president or if he was actually the President......

He may be impeached if he tries to start a war.

Click to expand...

As indeed he is in the ATL. However, the person of Tyler is not really important to the scenario. I have been considering that a better POD is that William Henry Harrison doesn't die in 1840, and then decides to take a "Jacksonesque" stance in opposition to the defiance of the Constitution by the Northern States.

Interesting TL...U got plotted up here Robert, I cant wait to see it when you really have it fleshed out...Keep it comming

Corrections to the timeline...

March 4, 1841--William Henry Harrison heeds the advice of his wife, who urges him to wear a warm overcoat as he gives his inauguration address, because it is an extremely chilly and windy day. He does not catch cold, and does not die a month later.

July 1843--President Harrison declares that the Federal Government will enforce the Constitution, by military means if necessary.

August 1843--President Harrison begins massing regular army units in Maryland and Kentucky to back up his threat, as well as stationing naval squadrons outside New York and Boston harbors.

September 1843--In response to President Harrison's provocative actions, a Convention of the Northern States is called in Hartford, Connecticut. A resolution is passed calling for secession from the Union. The New York and Massachusetts State Legisature vote for secession a week later.

On September 21, President Harrison declares New York and Massachusetts to be in rebellion, and orders the closure of New York and Boston Harbors. In response, the rest of the New England States secede over the course of the following two weeks, along with Pennsylvania and Ohio.

October 1843--President Harrison calls for 75,000 troops to put down the rebellion. However, the Southern States refuse to support the effort to coerce their sister States, and impeachment proceedings are soon brought against Harrison.

November 1843--President Harrison is impeached and removed from office. Vice President John Tyler, who has strongly opposed President Harrison's actions, is sworn in as the tenth President of the United States.

Delete the following entry--June 1844--Following the secession of New Jersey from the United States, President Samuel Southard resigns from his office. He is succeeded by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Willie Persons Mangum of North Carolina.

November 1844--James K. Polk of Kentucky defeats President Tyler in the national election and is elected President of the United States.

December 1844--President Tyler persuades the U.S. Congress to pass a joint resolution for the annexation of Texas.

March 1845--James K. Polk is sworn into office as the twelfth President of the United States.

Additions to the timeline

1844--James Wilson Marshall leaves Illinois and moves to the Iowa Territory. He settles there, sets up a sawmill business, and remains to the end of his life. (In OTL, Marshall settled in Missouri, caught Malaria, and was told to go west by his physician. He ended up in Northern California, working as a carpenter for John Sutter. Marshall had the idea to start a sawmill business, and Sutter agreed to partner with him, leaving Marshall to design and build the mill. During the process of construction, Marshall discovered gold, leading to the California gold rush. Since in the ATL Missouri is now in a different country, he goes elsewhere. As a result, he doesn't catch Malaria, and is not told to go West by his doctor, the sawmill is never built, and gold is not discovered in January 1848).

I wonder if Britain would retain more of the Pacific Northwest without Polk. While 54-40 or fight was mere posturing, would the FSA be in the best position to negotiate a good deal?

I gotta read up but this looks like a solid start. I would personally have it so William Henry Harrison lived and tried to enforce the Constitution as he was a Whig.

Kidblast said:

I wonder if Britain would retain more of the Pacific Northwest without Polk. While 54-40 or fight was mere posturing, would the FSA be in the best position to negotiate a good deal?

Click to expand...

That is a good question. I am assuming, due to the disruption of American politics as a result of the split, that the 1846 Oregon Treaty did not get negotiated on schedule and the Oregon Country is still in disputed status as of early 1849, as reflected on the map. However, I have not yet decided what the ultimate fate of the Territory will be.

Kidblast said:

I gotta read up but this looks like a solid start. I would personally have it so William Henry Harrison lived and tried to enforce the Constitution as he was a Whig.

Click to expand...

I changed it to reflect this POD on the Corrections posted above.

Historico said:

Interesting TL...U got plotted up here Robert, I cant wait to see it when you really have it fleshed out...Keep it comming

Click to expand...

Thank you. I have got a case of writer's block on the Britons Triumphant timeline, so I decided to do something a little less involved to give myself a break from it. I am glad you like it.

I'm curious how a U.S. missing its more prosperous and industrialized northern half somehow managed to annex half of Mexico.

The Bald Imposter said:

I'm curious how a U.S. missing its more prosperous and industrialized northern half somehow managed to annex half of Mexico.

Click to expand...

1) The disparity in industry between the North and the South at this point in history was much less than it was later, and the Industrial Revolution had not yet proceeded to the point where mass production dominated war-making as it did later on. The U.S. armies which utterly defeated Mexico in the OTL Mexican War were tiny...Winfield Scott commanded less than 20,000, and his was by far the largest force assembled by the United States during the war. There is no particular reason the United States in the ATL could not field forces of similar size, even without the North.

2) Historically, the Northern contribution to the War with Mexico was not that important. Opposition to the war in the North was very widespread, and the support given to the war in the way of manpower and otherwise was marginal.

3) Mexico was a complete basket case at this time, and not capable of putting up an effective resistance.

4) It may also interest you to know that nine of the ten wealthiest states in the Union, prior to 1865, were in the South. It was only after 1865 that the South became the economic "basket case" of the nation (hmmm, I wonder how that could have happened?). So while the Northern secession certainly would have deprived the ATL U.S. of it's more "industrialized" half, it would not have deprived it of it's more "prosperous" half.